collapse

* Recent Posts

Dallas bars tonite by madtown AL
[Today at 07:19:33 PM]


2024 NCAA Tournament Thread by Uncle Rico
[Today at 07:18:29 PM]


2024 Transfer Portal by Goose
[Today at 07:05:04 PM]


Sweet 16 presser by Daniel
[Today at 07:04:13 PM]


Where is Marquette? by NickelDimer
[Today at 07:02:50 PM]


10 years after “Done Deal” … It’s Happening! by Judge Smails
[Today at 07:02:27 PM]


2024 Coaching Carousel by the eagle
[Today at 06:05:16 PM]

Please Register - It's FREE!

The absolute only thing required for this FREE registration is a valid e-mail address.  We keep all your information confidential and will NEVER give or sell it to anyone else.
Login to get rid of this box (and ads) , or register NOW!


Author Topic: espn-double standard much??  (Read 65146 times)

shiloh26

  • Starter
  • ***
  • Posts: 138
Re: espn-double standard much??
« Reply #175 on: July 24, 2014, 11:16:48 PM »
Ding ding ding.  Unfortunately, that's not how it works, especially for the tolerance lobby.  They immediately go into "you're racist, you're a bigot, you're a religious blah blah" and the tolerance nonsense goes right out the window. It's a defensive mechanism for them but the whole ruse of tolerance from these people is a canard.  It doesn't exist.  It is tolerance for those views for which THEY believe.  If someone has different views, than tolerance no longer exists and the justification for not allowing that tolerance is to label people they don't agree with with various names.

It's quite entertaining.

More or less to Ammos point earlier, you are letting some pre-cooked paradigm cloud an actual instance where Tony Dungy espoused a hypocritical (based on his own past actions embracing, except for sexual orientation, otherwise similarly "distracting" persons) opinion, and one that a reasonable person can infer was a thinly veiled homophobic remark. You are so enamored  with pointing out other people's hypothetical ideological blind spots, you can't pick up on your own.

rocket surgeon

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3654
  • NA of course
Re: espn-double standard much??
« Reply #176 on: July 25, 2014, 06:54:32 AM »
You are the King of the Hypothetical Situation.

When you change your screen name again, you should think about going with that.



just this topic and the whole board for that matter is an exercise in "tolerance".  agree/disagree; points of view are made and people respond in agreement or disagreement.  that is kind of what these venues are supposed to do, right?  i find many here seem to have a real disdain for chicos points of view and are real quick to shoot him down, well, because it's chico.  just because he may use the hypotheticals to drive his point home doesn't invalidate his arguments.  is it the "hints" of conservatism that hits a nerve? ?-(  oh, one more thing, tim tebow(came up earlier on this topic) was a media distraction because of his christianity, not his athletic prowess.  tebow became espn's default news story on slow days. it got to the point where it became very obnoxious-like, just leave the guy alone obnoxious. hypothetical alert- now if he were islam and sucked, would they have run story after degrading story of him pulling out his prayer rug in an end zone celebration?  umm, i'm going to go out on a limb and say negative.  they(media) would have been made targets for a jihad as south park became.  the football part was just the means by which the media used to pound on him. sure he sucked, but he sucked with dignity and didn't waver from his beliefs as he was constantly made fun of.  they hated when he knelt down in the end zone and prayed. i think it made some in the media's eye's burn when he did that. they rather he did the atheist shuffle with a sharpie in his hand...tolerance.  God bless ya'll ;D
don't...don't don't don't don't

reinko

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 2696
Re: espn-double standard much??
« Reply #177 on: July 25, 2014, 07:17:43 AM »
just this topic and the whole board for that matter is an exercise in "tolerance".  agree/disagree; points of view are made and people respond in agreement or disagreement.  that is kind of what these venues are supposed to do, right?  i find many here seem to have a real disdain for chicos points of view and are real quick to shoot him down, well, because it's chico.  just because he may use the hypotheticals to drive his point home doesn't invalidate his arguments.  is it the "hints" of conservatism that hits a nerve? ?-(  oh, one more thing, tim tebow(came up earlier on this topic) was a media distraction because of his christianity, not his athletic prowess.  tebow became espn's default news story on slow days. it got to the point where it became very obnoxious-like, just leave the guy alone obnoxious. hypothetical alert- now if he were islam and sucked, would they have run story after degrading story of him pulling out his prayer rug in an end zone celebration?  umm, i'm going to go out on a limb and say negative.  they(media) would have been made targets for a jihad as south park became.  the football part was just the means by which the media used to pound on him. sure he sucked, but he sucked with dignity and didn't waver from his beliefs as he was constantly made fun of.  they hated when he knelt down in the end zone and prayed. i think it made some in the media's eye's burn when he did that. they rather he did the atheist shuffle with a sharpie in his hand...tolerance.  God bless ya'll ;D

In the age of every athlete thanking God for everything,  pre and post game prayers,  of players kneeling together, many sporting events singing the song God Bless America,  you truly believe the media had on all assault of Tebow because of Christian beliefs?   

GGGG

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 25207
Re: espn-double standard much??
« Reply #178 on: July 25, 2014, 08:04:06 AM »
In the age of every athlete thanking God for everything,  pre and post game prayers,  of players kneeling together, many sporting events singing the song God Bless America,  you truly believe the media had on all assault of Tebow because of Christian beliefs?   


Persecution complex.

Tebow was overhyped in part because his outward Christianity made him a very popular figure with a lot of people.  As I said earlier, his popularity way outsized his actual ability to perform.  I got tired of hearing about him, not cause of his religious beliefs, but because he wasn't very good.

jesmu84

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 6029
Re: espn-double standard much??
« Reply #179 on: July 25, 2014, 08:27:43 AM »
There's a big difference between beliefs/opinions and what laws the government can/should write. That's all I'll say on the topic beyond Dungy's specifics.

Lennys Tap

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 12220
Re: espn-double standard much??
« Reply #180 on: July 25, 2014, 09:39:11 AM »
On the Dungy matter, I'm with reinko, sultan, et al. Tony Dungy has a history of accomplishment, but that accomplishment would have been impossible if not for people willing to deal with "distractions" in an effort to make the NFL a meritocracy. That he would not be willing to return that favor to Michael Sam shows a hypocrisy and blind spot on his part. I think that is intolerance, and hiding behind "freedom of religion" doesn't change that. Chico and his supporters think that makes me intolerant. Maybe. If it's intolerant to call out Christians who think homosexuals are deviants or Muslims who think that wives are their husband's property, I plead unequivocally guilty.

The Tebow matter is different IMO - I find myself mostly with team Chico. Tebow is openly and devoutly Christian, but I've never heard him say anything even vaguely exclusionary, racist or homophobic. Sportswriters and talking heads like Boers and Bernstein don't hate him because he's another overrated Heisman trophy winning quarterback. The landscape is littered with them (Terry Baker, Gary Beban, John Huarte, Gino Torretta, Vince Young, etc. - the list is endless) and nobody gives or ever gave a crap. They hate him (listen to Boers and Bernstein - they really hate him) because he's unabashedly, joyfully Christian. And a white, southern Christian at that. For some, that's just too much "red meat" to resist.

« Last Edit: July 25, 2014, 09:51:42 AM by Lennys Tap »

jesmu84

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 6029
Re: espn-double standard much??
« Reply #181 on: July 25, 2014, 09:58:57 AM »
On Dungy...

If his objection to Sam and his distraction was purely d/t the OWN following him around daily at practice, etc. I can somewhat buy into that (because Vick/Keyshawn didn't have the same daily attention interfering with team/individual activities, workouts, etc). If, however, Dungy's objection has anything to do with Sam's sexuality, then that is BS.

Aughnanure

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 2860
Re: espn-double standard much??
« Reply #182 on: July 25, 2014, 10:38:47 AM »
In some cases, that is correct.  In those cases, it was also still based on procreation and a male female relationship.  Is it right?  Who knows.  Sorry, at least for another two years, religions do own the concept of marriage as they are not required to marry two men, or two women.   That could change, but right now they actually do own it.

No one is EVER requiring religions perform marriages that they are religiously against. EVER. This is such a dumb dumb fear. Making gay marriage legal does not mean that Catholicism is forced to perform gay marriages. What they are saying is that since the State recognizes marriage as a legal status, you cannot restrict a subset of our population from that legal right.

You do know there have some christian off-set religions marrying gay men and women for years now, right?
« Last Edit: July 25, 2014, 10:45:08 AM by Aughnanure »
“All men dream; but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible.” - T.E. Lawrence

Aughnanure

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 2860
Re: espn-double standard much??
« Reply #183 on: July 25, 2014, 10:40:55 AM »
Who decides what is bigoted?  Is it when Macaca is mentioned in a speech but not when Hymie is mentioned in a speech? 

Is it when someone calls an African American an Uncle Tom or calls a white guy a redneck?

Is it when someone accepts gay marriage, but not when someone's religion says it shouldn't be accepted?  I can only take this to mean the Pope is bigoted.

This is where it gets so confusing.  Help me Oh Bee One Ken Obi, you are my only hope.

It is when people advocate for a subset of our population to be denied a legal right that the rest of our population enjoys....and thinking that's right based on their prejudices. Not that hard, really.

And yes, religion has been bigoted for almost it's entire history. Where have you been? It has been good as well, but these are not mutually exclusive terms.
“All men dream; but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible.” - T.E. Lawrence

Aughnanure

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 2860
Re: espn-double standard much??
« Reply #184 on: July 25, 2014, 10:43:00 AM »
I think many people get this.  Depending on your beliefs, they may also believe that certain church leaders have the spirit of God in them and communicate to their flock accordingly.  So whether the bible says it or not, when the pope says gay marriage isn't something the church supports, many are going to follow that lead.  I'm not supporting that view or opposing it, but showing  you a real world illustration that has nothing to do with the bible, but everything to do with a religious view.  It is hardly contained in Catholicism.  You may think it is patently wrong viewpoint.  You may be right.  You may be dead wrong.  Problem is, the tolerance folks have said if you don't go with one viewpoint, then you're a bigot, homophobe, etc. 

Interesting....

Yeah....a "religious view" that comes from what they think is in the Bible.
“All men dream; but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible.” - T.E. Lawrence

ChicosBailBonds

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22695
  • #AllInnocentLivesMatter
    • Cracked Sidewalks
Re: espn-double standard much??
« Reply #185 on: July 25, 2014, 10:44:49 AM »
You are the King of the Hypothetical Situation.

When you change your screen name again, you should think about going with that.



Deflection might be yours.  Or, you could answer the question.


ChicosBailBonds

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22695
  • #AllInnocentLivesMatter
    • Cracked Sidewalks
Re: espn-double standard much??
« Reply #186 on: July 25, 2014, 10:46:47 AM »
Yeah....a "religious view" that comes from what they think is in the Bible.



Is the Pope bigoted? 

Aughnanure

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 2860
Re: espn-double standard much??
« Reply #187 on: July 25, 2014, 10:54:18 AM »


Is the Pope bigoted? 

If he believes that gay people are not worthy or are sinners because they are gay, then yes. But I personally believe Francis knows better but can't say as much (though he's hinted at it). Do you even know what being a bigot is? It's not a hard concept/definition to grasp.
“All men dream; but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible.” - T.E. Lawrence

Lennys Tap

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 12220
Re: espn-double standard much??
« Reply #188 on: July 25, 2014, 10:59:35 AM »
If he believes that gay people are not worthy or are sinners because they are gay, then yes. But I personally believe Francis knows better but can't say as much (though he's hinted at it). Do you even know what being a bigot is? It's not a hard concept/definition to grasp.

"I'm not a bigot! I just hate (fill in the blank)."

mu03eng

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5049
    • Scrambled Eggs Podcast
Re: espn-double standard much??
« Reply #189 on: July 25, 2014, 11:04:51 AM »
"I'm not a bigot! I just hate (fill in the blank)."

My response is always..."I'm not a bigot I hate everyone equally."
"A Plan? Oh man, I hate plans. That means were gonna have to do stuff. Can't we just have a strategy......or a mission statement."

ChicosBailBonds

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22695
  • #AllInnocentLivesMatter
    • Cracked Sidewalks
Re: espn-double standard much??
« Reply #190 on: July 25, 2014, 11:07:24 AM »
If he believes that gay people are not worthy or are sinners because they are gay, then yes. But I personally believe Francis knows better but can't say as much (though he's hinted at it). Do you even know what being a bigot is? It's not a hard concept/definition to grasp.

Do you know what the definition of tolerance is?  Based on your answers throughout this thread, you do not and nor do most people who claim to be tolerant.  That's the entire point.  If the Pope or anyone else believes in something that is sourced in their religious views, that is somehow a diluted or misinformed viewpoint because of that source.  In other words, religion isn't a good enough reason for many in the tolerant lobby, thus they aren't being tolerant at all in considering how other people view things or how they came to those views. 

The action right now is to try and shame people for their views, especially those that are based on religion.  It's a new McCarthyism which is ironic as hell.  It's easy to do, simply call those of faith idiots or make statements that God isn't real, crazy, or whatever.   It is being done daily and a religious viewpoint has been declared not applicable or worthy of consideration.  It doesn't count.  Intolerance of other people's views by deligitimizing religion as a whole.




mu03eng

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5049
    • Scrambled Eggs Podcast
Re: espn-double standard much??
« Reply #191 on: July 25, 2014, 11:08:23 AM »
No one is EVER requiring religions perform marriages that they are religiously against. EVER. This is such a dumb dumb fear. Making gay marriage legal does not mean that Catholicism is forced to perform gay marriages. What they are saying is that since the State recognizes marriage as a legal status, you cannot restrict a subset of our population from that legal right.

You do know there have some christian off-set religions marrying gay men and women for years now, right?

This...I've always struggled with understanding why there would be an objection to a religious marriage and a secular marriage.  They are two very different things.  

Religions can choose to do whatever they want with their marriage as it has no impact on a person's rights.  A secular marriage(a marriage recognized by a government) is currently tied to economic repercussions (good and bad) which means the government is picking winners and losers.
"A Plan? Oh man, I hate plans. That means were gonna have to do stuff. Can't we just have a strategy......or a mission statement."

ChicosBailBonds

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22695
  • #AllInnocentLivesMatter
    • Cracked Sidewalks
Re: espn-double standard much??
« Reply #192 on: July 25, 2014, 11:09:54 AM »
More or less to Ammos point earlier, you are letting some pre-cooked paradigm cloud an actual instance where Tony Dungy espoused a hypocritical (based on his own past actions embracing, except for sexual orientation, otherwise similarly "distracting" persons) opinion, and one that a reasonable person can infer was a thinly veiled homophobic remark. You are so enamored  with pointing out other people's hypothetical ideological blind spots, you can't pick up on your own.

What was hypocritical about his comments?  In order for something to be hypocritical you have to compare equal or fairly equal situations.  Sorry, but the analogy of Michael Vick and Sam are not the same, despite people wanting to make them so.  One had a reality show in tow for the entire preseason and beyond, the other did not. That is a distraction which is exclusive to one situation which is why he stated it wasn't a distraction that was worth it.

Galway Eagle

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 10461
Re: espn-double standard much??
« Reply #193 on: July 25, 2014, 11:10:48 AM »
Why do you assume I have anything against Islam?  I took the class at MU.  I work with two Muslims directly in my new gig, no issues at all. 

What I have to chuckle about is your opening paragraph about being "properly informed".  LOL.  Who gets to decide the properly informed part?  Just like your last sentence about the bible's concepts being f'd up.  Is that based on your Properly Informed viewpoint?

You see, this is the problem in all this.  Many folks think their view is the properly informed view and the other view sucks hairy balls.  Now, however, it is taken to a new level because you have folks not only saying someone else's view sucks, but they throw things around like homophobe, racist, etc, to try and control the argument.

Ministry of Truth....not that far away from it.   Seen the last few weeks how Oxford and Roget is now defining certain words?  It like someone just read 1984 in the last few months and started to roll it out.

Please state where I implied you had something against islam.  I said that the religion that was being protected from intolerance in that example was not the one you were likely hoping for as your argument comes from a biblical standpoint and the vast majority of people siding with your argument are christians.  

Who gets to decide about properly informed? Well I thought the example was pretty obvious but since you're too stubborn to grasp it I'll dumb it down.  Properly informed would be an opinion or belief after being presented with the facts.  Like in my example with my teachers, they were not properly informed before the doctor came in, they were after.  In an instance with homosexuality, it has been proven that A) sexuality is fluid in a lot of people, B) There are actual brain differences in what lights up in a brain scan, when they see an attractive man vs woman.  After seeing these types of facts (just a couple), one would be properly informed.  Or using the bible as evidence as to why traditional marriage needs to be protected, one would be properly informed after reading the traditional marriages mentioned.  

I think after 5yrs at MU, and 11yrs at a catholic preschool-8th grade, I have done enough bible study that it is properly informed.  However if you disagree that the bible is F'ed up then I invite you to have your daughter marry her rapist for 50 pieces of silver and see just how great you feel about that.  

I work 7 days a week 11-9:30 so no I have not seen anything to do with defining words.

You ignored my statement about the establishment clause so please tell me why traditional marriage should be protected using religion as reasoning.  
Maigh Eo for Sam

Galway Eagle

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 10461
Re: espn-double standard much??
« Reply #194 on: July 25, 2014, 11:17:26 AM »


Is the Pope bigoted? 

The current one or the last one? The current one who denounced trickle down economics, softened the church's stance on gay rights etc is not.  The one who tried to make reading Harry Potter a sin well yes
Maigh Eo for Sam

ChicosBailBonds

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22695
  • #AllInnocentLivesMatter
    • Cracked Sidewalks
Re: espn-double standard much??
« Reply #195 on: July 25, 2014, 11:21:25 AM »
No one is EVER requiring religions perform marriages that they are religiously against. EVER. This is such a dumb dumb fear. Making gay marriage legal does not mean that Catholicism is forced to perform gay marriages. What they are saying is that since the State recognizes marriage as a legal status, you cannot restrict a subset of our population from that legal right.

You do know there have some christian off-set religions marrying gay men and women for years now, right?

Ever?  It was not long ago that Christian hospitals were NEVER EVER going to have to provide abortion pills.  There is still a push by the ACLU and those within gov't to force Christian hospitals to provide abortions...we'll see where that lands, but don't kid yourself that this wasn't a major issue the last 5 years.   Will it happen where religions will be forced to marry gay couples?  Unlikely.  Can it happen?  No one knows.


Christian off-set religions?  Yes, there are many groups that splinter off and do their own thing.  Just as there are a number of "religions" that are self classified but not recognized which do all kinds of things.  They may be right, they may be wrong.  Personally, I believe it is up to them to do what they wish, but what I don't care for is why the tolerant lobby would overwhelmingly support those off-set religious groups but not other religious groups....except that they have a different viewpoint, and thus the tolerance of their viewpoints ends right there.   Ironically.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2014, 11:33:30 AM by ChicosBailBonds »

Aughnanure

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 2860
Re: espn-double standard much??
« Reply #196 on: July 25, 2014, 11:29:29 AM »
Don't ever say ever...it was not long about that Christian hospitals were NEVER EVER going to have to provide abortion pills.  There is still a push by the ACLU and those within gov't to force Christian hospitals to provide abortions...we'll see where that lands, but don't kid yourself that this wasn't a major issue the last 5 years.   Will it happen where religions will be forced to marry gay couples?  Unlikely.  Can it happen?  No one knows.

Christian off-set religions?  Yes, there are many groups that splinter off and do their own thing.  Just as there are a number of "religions" that are self classified but not recognized which do all kinds of things.  They may be right, they may be wrong.  Personally, I believe it is up to them to do what they wish, but what I don't care for is why the tolerant lobby would overwhelmingly support those off-set religious groups but not other religious groups....except that they have a different viewpoint, and thus the tolerance of their viewpoints ends right there.   Ironically.

Oh. Dear. God. I won't even need to get into the fact that you don't what the f*** you're talking about on birth control. But let me say this. Your hospital is not a church. In many areas it is the ONLY hospital available and the only place for nurses and doctors. It is a place of work. If a religion wants to supply a service to a community, they cannot just make-up rules that go against the legal and medical rights of those they are serving. This is part of being a freaking hospital.

And christ you are ignorant. Birth control is a vital part female healthcare and denying access to a key part of your body's healthcare is denying rights. A woman's reproductive organs are a ridiculously important part of her overall healthcare. But you know better because your sexist religion which denies female viewpoints and participation said so? What's next for you? Denying blood transfusions is okay because they go against some religion?

Lastly, I cannot help but mock your (purposeful?) misunderstanding of how healthcare insurance works. For god's sake, they're not being forced to give it to them personally.
“All men dream; but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible.” - T.E. Lawrence

ChicosBailBonds

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22695
  • #AllInnocentLivesMatter
    • Cracked Sidewalks
Re: espn-double standard much??
« Reply #197 on: July 25, 2014, 11:32:19 AM »
The current one or the last one? The current one who denounced trickle down economics, softened the church's stance on gay rights etc is not.  The one who tried to make reading Harry Potter a sin well yes

In YOUR view, and if he doesn't share your view he must be a bigot. 

Even if his beliefs are sourced from religious views, and that's the issue.  The tolerant lobby apparently gets to decide definitions and moves the goal posts accordingly.  On top of their criteria, the religious viewpoints carry little weight at all with them, thus the irony of tolerance to begin with.  Religious viewpoints don't count, or count very little thus tolerance of other peoples views when those views are grounded in religion is diluted by the so called tolerant brigade.  If you can't see that hypocrisy I can't help you.


Galway Eagle

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 10461
Re: espn-double standard much??
« Reply #198 on: July 25, 2014, 11:33:47 AM »
Quick recap on what the Bible says traditional marriage is.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw
« Last Edit: July 25, 2014, 11:48:05 AM by BagpipingBoxer »
Maigh Eo for Sam

Galway Eagle

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 10461
Re: espn-double standard much??
« Reply #199 on: July 25, 2014, 11:37:00 AM »
In YOUR view, and if he doesn't share your view he must be a bigot. 

Even if his beliefs are sourced from religious views, and that's the issue.  The tolerant lobby apparently gets to decide definitions and moves the goal posts accordingly.  On top of their criteria, the religious viewpoints carry little weight at all with them, thus the irony of tolerance to begin with.  Religious viewpoints don't count, or count very little thus tolerance of other peoples views when those views are grounded in religion is diluted by the so called tolerant brigade.  If you can't see that hypocrisy I can't help you.



Well quite frankly if someone is picking and choosing from their religion particularly the intolerant parts instead of say "love thy neighbor" then why should they be repaid with tolerance? If a person used religious grounds to focus on say "love thy neighbor" I'm confident you'd get an entirely different reaction. 
Maigh Eo for Sam

 

feedback